Asbestos: Breach, Causation and Damages, David Kearns v Delta Steeplejacks Limited [2017] EWHC 149 (QB) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 15th, 2017 in apportionment, asbestos, causation, damages, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Where an apportionment for exposure to asbestos was carried out using a time based apportionment as opposed to a dose based apportionment.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Inebriated pedestrians: a fresh view on foreseeability and novus actus interveniens – Zenith PI Blog

‘A consideration of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Scott v Gavigan [2016] EWCA Civ 544 before Elias LJ, Clarke LJ and Simon LJ.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.zenithpiwordpress.com

Commercial Landlord & Tenant Law – New Square Chambers

‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 4th, 2015 in apportionment, interpretation, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, rent by tracey

Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd and another: [2015] UKSC 72; [2015] WLR (D) 501

‘A term would only be implied into a detailed commercial contract if its implication were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or so obvious that went without saying.’

WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Decision on striking workers’ pay could make action less attractive, says expert, as Queen’s speech confirms new ballot rules – Out-Law.com

‘Employers may be entitled to deduct a day’s pay for strike action at the rate of 1/260th of the striking worker’s salary depending on contractual terms, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’

Full story

Out-Law.com, 28th May 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Hartley and others v King Edward VI College – WLR Daily

Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455; [2015] WLR (D) 216

‘Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to teachers’ contracts of employment, requiring that apportionment of pay be considered as accruing from day to day; but it was an error to construe the provision as though it also contained a principle of equal daily accrual.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Ahmad and another; Regina v Fields and others – WLR Daily

Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264

‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’

WLR Daily, 18th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Don’t ask the surveyor – NearlyLegal

‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

R (JG) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, apportionment, care orders, costs, expert witnesses, law reports, legal aid by michael

R (JG) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 656;  [2014] WLR (D)  235

‘Where a child who was a party to private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 had the benefit of public funding in respect of his costs and the court considered that it was necessary to instruct a single joint expert to produce a report to assist the court in determining what was in the best welfare interests of the child, but the other parties had no funding and were unable to pay their share of the expert’s costs, the court could depart from the order that it would otherwise have made, to the greater cost of the publicly funded party, where the failure to adduce the expert’s report would result in a breach of one of the party’s rights under articles 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the court was not prevented from doing so by section 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Where, in the case of a single joint expert, there was no problem over resources, there was no normal rule of equal apportionment of the costs, and that issue of apportionment was to be determined in the exercise of the court’s discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] EWCA Civ 446; [2009] WLR (D) 170

“It was possible to provide a conforming interpretation of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which avoided any unlawful restriction on a taxpayer company’s freedom of establishment, conferred by art 43EC of the EC Treaty, by the introduction of an additional exception to those contained in s 748(1)(a) to (e) and (3) in respect of the apportionment of profits of controlled foreign companies by the additional implication of the words ‘ if [the company] is, in that accounting period, actually established in another member state of the EEA and carries on genuine economic activities there’.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Capital and income in trusts: classification and apportionment – Law Commission

Posted May 8th, 2009 in apportionment, press releases, trusts by sally

“A project to examine the complicated rules governing the treatment of trust receipts and outgoings as capital or income and the extent to which trustees who have to distinguish between income and capital should be able to invest on a ‘total return’ basis, with reference particularly to trusts for interests in succession and to charitable trusts with permanent endowment.”

Full press release

Law Commission, 7th May 2009

Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk